Appeal 6006783

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a minimum of 5 dwellings and a maximum of 8 dwellings at [site address] , Tarleton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 2025/0863/PIP.

An application for costs was made by [name] against West Lancashire Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

I have taken the address in the banner heading and decision above from the appeal form as it more accurately identifies the appeal site than the description of the address provided on the application form. It also reflects the address on the Council’s decision notice with the addition of the postcode.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second ([name]) stage is where the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, the application form specified a minimum of 5 dwellings and a maximum of 8 dwellings.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular regard to the loss of an agricultural employment site.

Policy EC2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document (2013) (LP) outlines that employment opportunities in the rural areas are limited, and accordingly, the policy seeks to protect the continued employment use of existing employment sites, which could include any type of employment use, including agriculture and farming. Alternative uses will be considered only where it can be robustly demonstrated that the site is unsuitable for ongoing viable employment use, and where it is in accordance with other policies in the plan.

LP Policy GN4 further states that the Council will seek to retain existing commercial land and premises unless it can be demonstrated that: a) the continued use of the premises for its existing use is no longer viable, and it is not commercially viable to redevelop the land or refurbish the premises for its existing use; or b) the premises is no longer suitable for the existing use when taking into account access, highways, site location and infrastructure, physical constraints, environmental considerations and amenity issues; or c) marketing of the property indicates that there is no demand for the property in its existing use.

LP policies EC2 and GN4 are inconsistent with paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires local planning authorities to take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land, where this would help to meet identified development needs. Moreover, it states that proposals to use employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand should be supported, provided this would not undermine key economic sectors, and would be compatible with other policies in the Framework. The Framework does not impose the stringent requirement that a proposal needs to demonstrate that an existing employment or commercial use is no longer viable, suitable or has been subject to a period of marketing.

The appellant’s evidence is that the existing building sited on the western boundary was used in association with the former plant nursery on the appeal site. It has been disused for several years and the appellant asserts that it is unlikely to be of a standard which would be attractive to a modern occupier, constructed in fibre cement sheets. However, I have little further information before me to justify the loss of the building, or to demonstrate that the requirements of policies EC2 and GN4 are met. Accordingly, it is unclear whether there would be any prospect of the building being re-occupied for an agricultural or employment use, despite its current condition and construction.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not suitable for residential development having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular regard to the loss of an agricultural employment site. In that the proposal fails to demonstrate that there is no continuing need for the agricultural employment site or that the site is no longer viable or suitable for its purpose, there is conflict with LP policies EC2 and GN4. However, given the inconsistency identified with paragraph 128 of the Framework, I attribute this conflict a reduced amount of weight and the proposed development would result in only moderate harm in this regard.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is grey belt land, but this is a matter which has been raised by several interested parties, particularly in respect of the scope and rigour of the Green Belt assessment undertaken.

The Council refer to LP Policy GN1 part b) which states that development proposals outside settlement boundaries and within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, stating that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework provides that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where criteria a) to d) are met. Criterion a) is that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The definition of ‘grey belt’ is provided by Annex 2 of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes at (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework.

‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than the Green Belt) of the Framework would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Although not in dispute between the main parties, footnote 7 includes land with flood risk, a matter raised by interested parties particularly in respect of surface water which is said to accumulate along the site boundary. However, a Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the application which indicates that the site is located within [name] 1. Although the very western edge of the site is at risk of surface water flooding, the proposed development could be located outside this area, and a suitable drainage system would ensure that there is no risk for the lifetime of the development. This would be a matter for further assessment at the TDC stage.

Further, I have no technical evidence before me to suggest that the development would impact the habitat sites, a SSSI or irreplaceable habitats referenced in footnote 7. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the site does not comprise land where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The appeal site is not previously developed land. To determine if the site is other land that would meet the definition of grey belt, it is necessary to assess whether it strongly contributes to any of the purposes at a), b), or d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework. The PPG1 is clear that purposes b) and d) relate to towns, not villages, and that villages should not be considered a large built-up area in respect of purpose a). ‘Tarleton with [name] is identified in LP Policy SP1 as a ‘Key Sustainable Village,’ and, in my judgement, the area does not have the characteristics of a sprawling, large-built up area or substantial urban settlement. Accordingly, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to purposes a), b), or d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework, and it therein comprises grey belt land.

To not be regarded as inappropriate development, paragraph 155 of the Framework also requires that development on grey belt land would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; and the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

I have no reason to disagree with the main parties that purpose e) of paragraph 143 of the Framework would not be undermined, namely, to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. However, given representations from interested parties, I have considered the proposal further against purpose c) which is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The proposal relates to a very small area of land relative to the wider Green Belt in [name], and whilst extending beyond the settlement boundary, it would be well related to existing housing. Therefore, despite modest encroachment into the surrounding countryside, it would not affect the ability of all the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Consequently, there is currently a demonstrable unmet need for housing, and the proposal would comply with criterion b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The appeal site adjoins existing housing on the edge of the settlement, and there is a reasonable range of facilities and services available within walking distance, including a supermarket and schools. Regular bus services from [address] also provide access to larger service centres, such as Preston and Southport. Interested parties raise concern in respect of the narrow width of [address], exacerbated by on-street parking, as well as traffic and congestion particularly at the [address] and [address] junction. These issues were not evident on my weekday morning site visit, but I appreciate that traffic and on-street parking levels will likely fluctuate, particularly coinciding with the school day, and the proposed development would increase vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements.

However, the Council does not highlight any concerns in this respect, and there is no technical evidence before me to indicate that the development could not achieve a safe and suitable access, or that there would be significant impacts on the transport network or highway safety. Further details on these matters would also be considered at the TDC stage. Consequently, the appeal site is a sustainable location, including in the context of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, and the proposal would comply with paragraph 155 c).

As the proposal is not major development, the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156–157 of the Framework are not applicable. 1 [name]: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225

For the above reasons, I find the appeal site to be grey belt land, and the proposed development would meet the requirements of paragraph 155 of the Framework. Accordingly, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, there is no requirement to consider any effects on the openness of the Green Belt, or if very special circumstances exist to justify the development.

Interested parties have raised several issues in addition to those set out above, including layout, scale and design of the dwellings, the effect on the character and appearance of the area, the effects on the living conditions of existing neighbouring residents, drainage and ecological effects. These matters would be considered in more detail at the TDC stage, and from the information before me, they would not justify refusing permission in principle with regard to the site’s location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The boundary of the Fulwood and [address] Conservation Area (the CA) is formed by the eastern side of [address], opposite its junction with [address]. The special interest and significance of the CA is described in the ‘Fulwood and [address] Conservation Area Appraisal Update’ (2014) as being derived from the large, bespoke typically turn of the 20th century dwellings which are set on a pair of narrow and linked avenues. [address] contributes positively to the setting of the CA, but, whilst undeveloped, the appeal site is set behind existing housing on its western side. Consequently, it is visually and physically separate, and the [address] frontage of the CA is not directly experienced from the appeal site.

I therefore consider that the setting of the CA would be preserved. This would meet the requirements of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the provisions of the Framework regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. I note the Council raised no concerns in this respect either.

[name] recognise the concerns of interested parties, I have little evidence that the proposed location, land use and the amount of development would have an unacceptable impact on existing local services and infrastructure. Impacts of a development on the value of a neighbouring property is not a material planning consideration. Further, issues in respect of unrecorded public rights of way, historic footpaths or whether existing hedgerows would be afforded protection under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 fall outside the scope of this appeal.

Concerns are also raised that allowing the appeal could set an undesirable precedent. [name] appreciate that consistency in the planning process is important, each case is determined on its own site-specific circumstances and merits. As such, I am satisfied that my decision would not harm the ability of the Council to exercise their judgement on other proposals.

The Council has confirmed that it can demonstrate only a 1.86-year housing land supply. The lack of a 5-year housing land supply triggers paragraph 11d) of the Framework via footnote 8. This states that where there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the proposal are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless one of two exceptions apply.

The first exception at paragraph 11d)i. is not engaged as the application of Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance, including those relating to the Green Belt, do not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. The second exception at 11d)ii. requires any adverse impacts to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies.

In relation to the main issue, I have found there to be a conflict with LP policies EC2 and GN4 insofar as it has not been demonstrated that the building is no longer needed, suitable or viable for its existing use. These are matters not required by paragraph 128 of the Framework, and accordingly, I afford only moderate weight to the conflict with these policies.

I afford significant weight to the delivery of between five and eight dwellings, given the substantial shortfall in housing land supply. The development would align with the Framework where it seeks to increase the supply of housing and where it acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements, often built out relatively quickly. The Framework further supports the effective use of land and development of under-utilised buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing. The proposal is also in a location with a choice of sustainable transport modes.

For these reasons, I find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies in this case.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is a material consideration, which in this case means the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

The PPG is clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. In accordance with the relevant legislation, any application for TDC must be made within three years from the date of this decision.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed, and permission in principle is granted for between five and eight dwellings.